from the rack-up-all-the-overtime-and-arrests-you-want,-guys! dept

When faced with First Amendment activity they don't care for, some legislators attempt to gerrymander this right until it only contains the speech they like. This can take the form of cyberbullying bills, hate speech legislation, and, lately, anti-protesting laws.

The problem with these efforts is they routinely run afoul of the Constitution. Some do better than others trying to stay within the confines of what can actually be controlled by the government, but in most cases, the proposed laws are badly-written rush jobs attempting to paper over the current issue du jour.

Under the terms of the bill, “a person is responsible for public safety response costs incurred by a State agency or political subdivision as a result of the State agency’s or political subdivision’s response to a demonstration if, in connection with the demonstration, the person is convicted of a felony or misdemeanor offense.”

In other words, they could be on the hook for costs, such as police overtime, medical or emergency response, or other basic public services associated with protests. Whatever felony or misdemeanor offense the protester was convicted of would come with its own independent penalty.

Because the state's laws concerning damage to property and the usual assortment of rioting-related charges apparently isn't enough to deter people from complaining about stuff in Martin's district, a new law must be put in place to hold demonstrators responsible for the actions of others, as well as anything the state might want to add to the final post-protest invoice.

The bill cites -- in support of its First Amendment-chilling efforts -- the millions of dollars spent by government agencies in response to the Dakota Pipeline protests. It's a slick move, one that might convince more bottom-line-oriented legislators to hop aboard despite the obvious Constitutional implications.

In practice, this law could saddle someone picked up during a protest for blocking a sidewalk (a misdemeanor) with a sizable chunk of the costs incurred by the government during the protest. This will discourage most people from showing support for any controversial cause or, indeed, for any cause at all. Any protest of any size will result in additional expenditures by government agencies, all of which can now be passed on directly to the protest's participants.

And it won't be spread evenly among participants. The costs will be borne only by those arrested, which creates an incentive to arrest as many protesters as possible to offset projected expenses. This, in turn, will push prosecutors towards ensuring even the most bullshittiest of charges sticks, as they'll have to answer to lawmakers waving ledger books filled with red ink if they don't.

Sure, this bill won't survive a Constitutional challenge, but someone's going to have to spend their own money to correct the Pennsylvania government's error. Hopefully, the bill will get laughed out of the legislature immediately -- especially since Rep. Martin's intentions may be less than honorable.

DeSmog Blog notes that Martin has close ties to pipeline lobbyists. Prior to joining the Pennsylvania Senate, Martin worked for a firm called Community Networking Strategies. CNS is a subsidiary of the lobbying firm, McNees, Wallace & Nurick — which lobbies for Gulf Oil Ltd, Industrial Energy Consumers of Pennsylvania, and Sunoco Logistics.

If it does somehow become law, it will be a statewide embarrassment and a vehicle for government abuse. And it will give the state the ability to rob Peter twice to pay Officer Paul's protest-related overtime.

from the dangeorus dept

Over the weekend, it came out that two giant pharmacy chains, Rite Aid and CVS, had started blocking Apple Pay, the massively hyped new payment system from Apple that has received much praise for its ease of use. The product had worked for about a week before the two companies started blocking such near field communication (NFC) payments (which also takes out other NFC payment options like Google Wallet). While Rite Aid gave a vague and slightly ridiculous explanation -- that it is "still in the process of evaluating our mobile payment options" -- pretty much everyone knows the truth. A bunch of retailers, led by Walmart, have been creating their own mobile payment system called CurrentC, which cuts out the credit card companies. But, it also builds in all the tracking and spying features of store loyalty cards, expanded across all merchant partners. Apple Pay lets people remain anonymous.

In short: CurrentC lets merchants (1) cut out credit card transaction fees and (2) get more and more data on shoppers. No wonder they want to block out other options.

All of these moves should be concerning. They're clearly not being done with the consumer in mind. Nearly everyone who's played with Apple Pay has agreed that the system is a huge leap ahead for mobile payments in terms of ease of use. Instead, we're seeing giant organizations looking to team up to keep competitors out of the market. At the very least, this should raise serious antitrust issues. But it also demonstrates, in a different sphere, why net neutrality is such a concern. When you have large companies that can effectively collude to block or kill certain powerful and useful apps and services, it hinders and blocks important innovations, leaving consumers significantly worse off. Not only are they left with fewer choices and lower quality apps and services, but it also pushes consumers into services -- like CurrentC -- that take away their privacy.

Millions of French netizens discover their YouTube streams sputter and die or never begin in the first place. Other video services, including TF1, are also struggling. The effect varies, sometimes randomly and sometimes by time of day. Respected consumer organization UFC-Que Choisir found between 20% and 50% of users surveyed online had problems.

Again, the existing connection remains and much of the traffic gets through. But Net traffic always grows and without regularly adding additional capacity many - not all - streams are blocked. French networks, with France Telecom in the lead, are refusing to accept growing traffic from Cogent, a major backbone carrier that services Google. They demand payment to accept all the streams their customers request. The independent French competition authority (Autorite de la concurrence) on September 20 approved the charging plan, leaving no doubt this is neutrality dispute.

The details suggest that this isn't so much a "neutrality" issue as a peering dispute. In fact, it actually sounds somewhat similar to the Level 3 / Comcast dispute from a few years back. In that case, Level 3 was providing service to Netflix, and Comcast worried about the big influx of traffic. Comcast (like France Telecom) demanded that Level 3 pay up for delivering it extra traffic. The bit that's interesting here is that French regulators got involved and said that this was legal in this case, though they're worried about the lack of transparency.

Of course all this does is show, yet again, how the internet's interconnectivity through peering arrangements is increasingly under pressure as certain broadband players become more powerful. And, unfortunately, the public (and their YouTube videos) may be at risk.

from the sacrebleu dept

If you're like me, you may have thought that France was simply a repository for cheese-eating surrender-monkeys. It turns out that's not true. They also have a wonderful court system that doesn't want to understand the digital world. That same French court system also managed to make a complete mockery of HADOPI, all while hysterically referring to their actions as "justice".

But French lawmakers now have a new target in their crosshairs: Google. Lawmakers are reportedly considering legislation that will force search engines to pay for sending French newspapers readers.

French newspaper publishers have been pushing for the law, saying it is unfair that Google receives advertising revenue from searches for news.

French Culture Minister Aurelie Filippetti also favours the idea.

This may be my favorite stance of all time. It's unfair that Google, a search engine, receives revenue on searches, i.e. their business, and it should instead go to news organizations that are not in the business of search but still receive the traffic. I am sure there's a word out there that properly describes the stupidity of this stance, but so far all the ones I'm coming up with involve the kind of language Mike keeps telling me I'm not allowed to use on Techdirt (which is [censored], by the way (oh, come on, really?)).

Google, because they don't exist in the same non-logic-ungrateful-verse, and after apparently spending some time reading our comments section and picking up on some suggestions there, is now letting France know that if they go through with the law, they'll simply exclude French media organizations from search results. In addition, in a letter to lawmakers, they added:

Google said such a law "would threaten its very existence".

Google France had said earlier that the plan "would be harmful to the internet, internet users and news websites that benefit from substantial traffic" that comes via Google's search engine. It said it redirected four billion clicks to French media pages each month.

Which leaves France with an interesting choice. Continue on with their proposed legislative silliness and forfeit all the traffic Google sends French newspapers via search results, or retreat from their position, thus proving my ignorant American stereotyping of them correct. Your move, France!

from the this-won't-end-well dept

We've been following (for years) this ridiculous German proposal to make sites that link to and/or excerpt tidbits from news websites to have to pay for the privilege of sending traffic to the sites. While it's a spectacularly short-sighted proposal that will lead to significant problems and costs (without much real benefit), it's no surprise that publishers in other countries are getting jealous and are seeking to get the same sort of deal. Apparently, the fact that this proposal is gaining steam in Germany has emboldened French publishers to start seeking similar rights in France with which they could demand that Google pay newspapers for linking to their stories with a snippet. In other words, these publishers see a chance at a cash cow from actual innovators, right into their pockets, if they can just convince the government that "well, Germany's doing it!!!"

from the i-know-the-feeling dept

I've pointed out before that, contrary to the smug insistence of many people who dislike this site, I don't download any unauthorized content. At all. In 1999 I had Napster on my computer, but I was stuck on a dialup connection, so I never had a chance to test it out before it got shut down (and, at the time I had no real desire to listen to music via my computer). Since that time, I've always legally obtained the various content I consume, preferably directly from artists themselves, but otherwise through buying the CD or via Amazon or CD Baby (and now I use Spotify a lot too, though I still like to directly support artists when I can). Despite people insisting that I must be "pirate Mike," as I've said repeatedly, I'm simply not comfortable with going against the wishes of copyright holders. My arguments concerning the economics of free and why I think many artists should embrace these markets has a lot to do with what I think would be best for them, but I've never tried to use that to justify copyright infringement (again, contrary to what some insist).

During the SOPA fight, I explained this to someone who was heavily involved on the other side of the debate, and he simply couldn't believe it, and made comments to the effect that even he would download unauthorized content, even if he felt it was wrong and he felt morally obligated to pass an internet-harming law to try to prevent himself from continuing to do so. Of course, for what it's worth, I'm sure that I accidentally and incidentally infringe all of the time. Someone sends me a YouTube video? Could be infringing. These days it's impossible not to accidentally infringe all the time. But when it comes to actually getting copies of content, I feel a personal obligation to do so in an authorized manner.

So, I identify quite closely with Brian Barrett's recent article at Gizmodo, where he basically explains that he's just like me: he pays for all the content he consumes. And he follows it up by noting that, even as he knows this is the "right" thing to do, it makes him "feel like a sucker," because the experience he gets is much worse than what those who download unauthorized copies get.

I waited nearly a full year to watch Game of Thrones, because that's how long it took to get from HBO to iTunes. If I had any interest in purchasing a Avatar 3D Blu-ray, I would have either had to buy a Panasonic 3DTV or wait three years just for the right to spend thirty bucks on FernGully with giant blue cat-people having tail sex.

Even content that's accessible doesn't often make much financial sense. Amazon's the most reasonably priced e-retailer in the world (seriously, it's got 1,000 albums for five bucks each right now), but even it can be fraught with peril and annoyance. Ebooks that cost more than their paperback equivalents. The specter of DRM haunting every click. A layout so unnavigable you feel like you're being punished.

Want to comparison shop? Forget about it. Ecosystems aren't just apps and software anymore, they're movies and TV shows and everything you'd ever want to watch, read, or listen to. On any given day the best price might be on Amazon or iTunes or Google Play or Xbox, but if you want the simple comfort of knowing everything you paid for with your own American dollars lives in one place? Expect to pay full freight for most of it.

This is why I've always been arguing from the position of copyright holders and the content creators for why they shouldn't just scream about how awful piracy is, but rather learn from it, and note that many people who are infringing are getting a better user experience. When they don't do that, the end result may not be "infringement," but it may just be people dropping out of the market entirely. Lately, that's what I've done with movies. Despite being a movie buff, the limitations and controls on movie efforts has just made the whole thing not worth it. Combined with less time than I used to have (yay, family life), it's made me pretty much stop watching movies or TV shows over the past two years. These days, the market is so fragmented, and the offerings still all seem so half-baked, that I'd rather spend my time reading or writing or just spending time with friends and family. I don't necessarily feel like a "sucker" as Brian does, but I find that it's just not worth the hassle.

Eventually, I figure the market will catch up, and perhaps I'll go back to it at that point. But if the industry has lost some of my spending dollars it's not because of infringement -- but because they've failed to deliver a compelling customer experience for me.

from the more-convenience,-availiability,-and-better-pricing dept

We've been saying it for years, and plenty of past studies have supported the assertion as well, but yet another report -- this time based on a survey in Denmark -- shows that those who regularly download unauthorized works online would actually prefer to use legal services, but are frustrated by the lack of convenience, choice and availability. The survey results did not directly have them complain about price, but when asked what would reduce infringement, price was a major variable. In other words: offer a reasonable service that is convenient, useful, not limited and which is reasonably priced, and you'll convince a lot of people that it's more worthwhile than infringement. We've certainly seen this in some areas already, but truly convenient and reasonably priced services are still hard to find for the most part. It would be great to see more competition and more innovation in that space -- and reports like this suggest it would actually be good for everyone -- including the copyright holders. Oh, and for the record, this report (also like tons before) show that those who infringe also tend to buy plenty of content as well.

from the all-your-digital-purchases-are-belong-to-us dept

Digital distribution can be a good thing, eliminating shipping, packaging, printing, storage, etc. and allowing instantaneous order fulfillment. Unfortunately, it has its downside, especially when digital products are tied to "walled gardens." The possibility always exists that the product you purchased, for all intents and purposes, never really belongs to you. We've seen it previously with Amazon's decision to suddenly remove purchased e-books from customers' e-readers.

In the case of iTunes, customers are not entitled to refunds on purchases, with the product in question being treated much in the same fashion as opened software, DVDs, etc. in brick-and-mortar stores. Once you've opened (installed) the product, it's yours forever, no matter how terrible it is.

"According to the iTunes Store Terms of Sale, all purchases made on the iTunes Store are ineligible for refund. This policy matches Apple's refund policies and provides protection for copyrighted materials."

In Campbell's case, the product in question isn't actually a bad piece of software, unlike the many clones and scamware inhabiting app markets. By his own account, he purchased and enjoyed the game (Touch Racing Nitro). After he purchased it, the developer (Bravo) went through a series of price adjustments, trying to find a sweet spot, ranging from £1.19 - £4.99. When this failed to make the impact on sales, Bravo offered a few free trial periods before marking it all the way down to 69p, which moved it back into the top 10 for a short time.

It's at this point that things get ugly.

Last October the game went free again, and stayed that way for four months. Then the sting came along. About a week ago (at time of writing), the game received an "update", which came with just four words of description - "Now Touch Racing Free!" As the game was already free, users could have been forgiven for thinking this wasn't much of a change. But in fact, the app thousands of them had paid up to £5 for had effectively just been stolen.

Two of the game's three racing modes were now locked away behind IAP paywalls, and the entire game was disfigured with ruinous in-game advertising, which required yet another payment to remove.

Campbell's paid-for software suddenly became indistinguishable from the free version, despite his having anted up for the game months ago. He fired off an email to Bravo, asking the developers to explain their reasoning for removing previously paid for content and asking these same paying customers to pay up again in order to return the game to its previous state.

He received a reply a day later from Ana Hidalgo, Bravo's "Social Media Manager":

"Hi!

Thanks for contacting us.

I'm really sorry about that. I knew that this could happen. The team had no option but to do that.

We're not trying to make money from people who have already bought the game like you did. It is not an excuse, but only 4% of the 2MM downloads have been paid ones. Unfortunately, Apple doesn't provide with any methods to know when an user has paid or not for an app. We just want to monetize the game from that 96% who are enjoying the game for free. Our goal is to monetize them via advertisement. We understand that this is annoying for the players that have paid for it.

Yes, maybe we could have released a LITE version, but if we release a new free version, we couldn't monetize near 2 MM free downloads we already have. And why we have 96% free downloads? A very bad old decision.. We've begun a new phase at Bravo Games and we definitely need some revenues from those downloads.

At the moment all our efforts are focused in new projects. When we finish those projects, we'll evaluate the possibility of adding new content to previous games like Touch Racing Nitro.

I regret to hear that you never buy another of our apps."

For all the supposed "entitlement" game fans have attributed to them constantly, nothing quite matches the entitlement "radiating from Sra. Hildalgo." For starters, if a developer feels that making an app free was a "mistake," it only compounds its errors when it starts taking it out on paying customers, especially when those customers number in the thousands.

If 96% of those were free downloads, that means that a whopping 80,000 people who paid money for Touch Racing have just been screwed. If we assume an arbitrary but reasonable average price of £1.19 (the second-lowest App Store price tier at the time most of the sales were made, though the app has cost at least twice that much for most of its life), that's just short of £100,000 that Bravo have extracted from consumers for what is in effect a "Lite" demo version of the game.

Imagine if the rest of the world worked this way. Imagine you went to Tesco and bought three boxes of Corn Flakes on a "three-for-two" offer, only for a Tesco employee to turn up at your house one day a month later and confiscate not only the "free" box but also the second one that you'd actually paid for. There'd be riots, or at the very least a long court backlog of assault cases and battered workers. Yet apparently, for videogames it's the dynamic economic model of the future.

Campbell is, unfortunately, right. Digital distribution puts control of purchased products completely in the hands of the developers and the distribution service. There are some game developers who would love nothing more than to go to 100% straight digital distribution, not only for the previously mentioned savings, but to allow them to retain complete control of their products. A fully digital distribution disguises DRM as a facet of the service (constant online connection, some or most content inaccessible offline) and helps eliminate the used game market which seems to rank very slightly below straight-up piracy in their minds.

Whatever pluses there are for the consumer are greatly negated by these factors. Any dispute between the distributor and the developers puts purchased products in the firing line. Should a developer suddenly pull out of the walled garden, customers may find themselves without support or updates for their purchased products, or worse yet, find themselves without functioning products.

Campbell has adjusted his tactics accordingly:

WoSland is a pretty wily consumer, and currently has eight apps sitting in its iPhone's "update" queue which are never going to get those updates, because the "update" in question is in fact a downgrade, removing functionality and/or adding ads. We've deleted many others altogether for the same reason.

Of course, this is far from convenient. Once you run into this situation, you're left with the choice of allowing all updates (even those that downgrade your software) or tediously updating all of your apps one at a time after verifying that said update won't remove functionality. Hardly ideal.

As he points out, console owners aren't so lucky. Most updates are forced, giving you the "choice" of updating or not playing your purchased game. And it's not just games and apps. As referenced above, e-books readers have been victims of distributor meddling in the past. Users of "services" like Ultraviolet and the "drive your DVD to the retailer to rip it to the cloud" may find their copies bricked if these services are shut down or (more likely) get caught in the middle of a contractual dispute.

If it's all about "control" with gatekeepers and walled gardens, digital distribution is playing right into their hands, turning what should be an advantageous situation for everyone involved into little more than a mixed curse.

from the don't-mess-with-the-first-amendment dept

Last summer, we wrote about a huge ruling in an appeals court concerning a guy, Simon Glik, who was arrested by Boston police for filming them as they arrested someone else. The court not only found that the arrest was a clear violation of the 1st and 4th Amendments, but that since police should have known the arrest was bogus, following through with it was a civil rights violation for which they could be liable for damages. Because of that, the city has now paid Glik $170,000 to settle the case he filed against them. Not surprisingly, the Boston Police also indicate that they're working hard to make sure this doesn't happen again -- because it could get costly.

from the forget-feedback-forms... dept

We've been using Flattr on the site for a little over a year now, and I'm planning to do a writeup about our experiences with the service shortly. If you weren't aware of it, Flattr is a very neat, extremely simple, way of monetarily supporting content that you like. As I noted in my initial writeup of the service, Flattr is very clever in how it gets rid of the traditional "transaction costs" problem of most micropayments system, in that each month you just have a set amount that you've already agreed to spend, and each Flattr merely divides up that pie by one more slice.

It's been interesting to see the service evolve -- especially watching as it went from closed beta to open so that anyone can use it. If you haven't yet signed up, you should at least check it out. But one of the more interesting things in how it has evolved are the unexpected ways in which the service can be used. Take, for example, a fantastic looking conference taking place in Sweden later this month, put on by Media Evolution, called The Conference (which I had wanted to attend, but was unable to make). The conference organizers have set it up so that pretty much everything at the conference is "Flattrable." Like a speaker? Flattr him/her. Like an entire session? You can Flattr it through the app or directly via QR codes around the event. See someone ask a smart question? Ask to see their badge, and you can Flattr them directly.

As far as I know, this is the first time this has been done like this and, as with any experiment, you never know for sure how it will work out, but I think it's a pretty cool experiment and I hope that it goes well. I look forward to finding out from the organizers some of what they learn from the experiment.